who are you?

[Sunny]

sunny i wouldn`t exactly call the route to the ground the sights mate but i see your point

Yeh that alleyway up to the Kop from the King Harry is hardly Broadway is it LOL ? (And thats Broadway New York not Broadway Liverpool)

[rodo]

he got a ticket for utd away in an exec box and thought he was the dogs gonads for week until i blagged one for the semi went quiet then and before i get stick over goin in a box lets just say the box wasn`t quite the same after we had visited

[rodo]

ah the picturesque journey to anfield from kirkby to anfield i don`t know how lucky i am

[The Glove]

I have the picturesque walk down County Road and across the Park. I win.

[rodo]

surely you cant walk down county road everyone knows that is an area only populated by bitters as they all live on the doorstep of the ground

[paulcooper4]

surely you cant walk down county road everyone knows that is an area only populated by bitters as they all live on the doorstep of the ground

yes, as they say, they are the peoples club and its just a figment of our imagination that the toll booths in the tunnels from wales are backed up to the mountains with sheep shagging boyos in everton tops every time the blue ****e are getting ****ted by someone at home again

[Le Chacal]

I am not exactly sure what happened in Liverpool, but I can assume that Thatcher's policy to de-regulate many of the inefficient nationalised industries such as steel/coal/gas had a negative impact on the city. Before discussing the negatives, let's be clear on what privatization etc has done for the UK as a whole. Share ownership amongst ordinary people increased dramatically and many of the enterprises became efficient profit making organizations. This together with the policies mentioned above enabled UK to enjoy the relative economic stability that we are seeing today - Thatcher was well aware of the actions needed for long term economic growth and took action instead of waiting for someone else to bail the country out of its problems. There should be absolutely no doubt that privatization to increase competition and economic freedom benefits the consumer. A free market with limited government protection means lower prices and better quality for the consumers. This is the heart of Milton Friedman's "free trade" argument.

Therefore, your argument comes down to this: Thatcher's policy had no social and ethical consideration. The under-privileged individual worker was totally sacrificed for the overall LONG TERM good of the economy. In essence, you are asking for protectionism in industries where many of these underprivileged workers work. You are asking for tariffs and quotas. You are asking for trade unions that help protect workers and prevent the elites from exploiting "those of lower socio-economic standing for their own gain".

It's exactly the other way round. The best way to limit the control of a few "elites" is FREE TRADE on a worldwide basis. There is no measure whatsoever that would do more to prevent private monopoly development than complete free trade.

One of the reasons why we hear far more criticisms than praise on this particular issue of displacement is that, as Milton Friedman said, the action of removing protectionist measures is "only in the general interest and in nobody's special interest". Each of us is fundamentally more concerned with our role as a PRODUCER of one product than we are as a CONSUMER of a thousand and one products. The benefits of protectionist measures such as tariffs and quotas are visible. The workers at Liverpool can 'see' that they are protected. HOWEVER, the harm that these protectionist measures does is invisible. It is spread widely. There are many people who don't have jobs because of these protectionist measures but other people don't know because there isn't anybody out there who is willing to organize them in a big group like a trade union. Consumers, normal folks like you and me - we have to pay a little more because of tariffs and quotas. But we don't RECOGNIZE that is the reason for paying that little more do we?

You are are wrong to say that Friedman is putting the interest of society as a whole ahead of the interests of individuals. If there is one element in his social and ethical philosophy that is predominant it is that the ultimate unit is the INDIVIDUAL and that the society is a MEANS by which we jointly achieve our objectives.

Very good lesson my friend. I understand now your "Chicago" name...School of Chicago, London scool of economics....Fukuyama, Hayek, Friedman and their "End of History", "Third way" etc..

Watch Ken Loach movies and see what Thatcher's policies have done to thousands of genuine and hard workers. A disaster that ruined thousands of families.

For example, The train system in England is the worst in Europe. And its the most expensive I've ever seen. At least 30 years behind France and Switzerland. In 2002 i took the train, the guy who was cheking the tickets told me i was in 1st class and to move to the 2nd class. I was on a ****ing wooden chair! 53£ from Gatwick to B'mouth, the train was 1 hour late, stopped another hour in the middle of nowhere near Portsmouth, then it was cancelled and we had to wait another hour in S'ton for the next train. Benefits for consumer my arse!
Try again mate, Im far from being convinced.

[Le Chacal]

I am not exactly sure what happened in Liverpool, but I can assume that Thatcher's policy to de-regulate many of the inefficient nationalised industries such as steel/coal/gas had a negative impact on the city. Before discussing the negatives, let's be clear on what privatization etc has done for the UK as a whole. Share ownership amongst ordinary people increased dramatically and many of the enterprises became efficient profit making organizations. This together with the policies mentioned above enabled UK to enjoy the relative economic stability that we are seeing today - Thatcher was well aware of the actions needed for long term economic growth and took action instead of waiting for someone else to bail the country out of its problems. There should be absolutely no doubt that privatization to increase competition and economic freedom benefits the consumer. A free market with limited government protection means lower prices and better quality for the consumers. This is the heart of Milton Friedman's "free trade" argument.

Therefore, your argument comes down to this: Thatcher's policy had no social and ethical consideration. The under-privileged individual worker was totally sacrificed for the overall LONG TERM good of the economy. In essence, you are asking for protectionism in industries where many of these underprivileged workers work. You are asking for tariffs and quotas. You are asking for trade unions that help protect workers and prevent the elites from exploiting "those of lower socio-economic standing for their own gain".

It's exactly the other way round. The best way to limit the control of a few "elites" is FREE TRADE on a worldwide basis. There is no measure whatsoever that would do more to prevent private monopoly development than complete free trade.

One of the reasons why we hear far more criticisms than praise on this particular issue of displacement is that, as Milton Friedman said, the action of removing protectionist measures is "only in the general interest and in nobody's special interest". Each of us is fundamentally more concerned with our role as a PRODUCER of one product than we are as a CONSUMER of a thousand and one products. The benefits of protectionist measures such as tariffs and quotas are visible. The workers at Liverpool can 'see' that they are protected. HOWEVER, the harm that these protectionist measures does is invisible. It is spread widely. There are many people who don't have jobs because of these protectionist measures but other people don't know because there isn't anybody out there who is willing to organize them in a big group like a trade union. Consumers, normal folks like you and me - we have to pay a little more because of tariffs and quotas. But we don't RECOGNIZE that is the reason for paying that little more do we?

You are are wrong to say that Friedman is putting the interest of society as a whole ahead of the interests of individuals. If there is one element in his social and ethical philosophy that is predominant it is that the ultimate unit is the INDIVIDUAL and that the society is a MEANS by which we jointly achieve our objectives.

Very good lesson my friend. I understand now your "Chicago" name...School of Chicago, London scool of economics....Fukuyama, Hayek, Friedman and their "End of History", "Third way" etc..

Watch Ken Loach movies and see what Thatcher's policies have done to thousands of genuine and hard workers. A disaster that ruined thousands of families.

For example, The train system in England is the worst in Europe. And its the most expensive I've ever seen. At least 30 years behind France and Switzerland. In 2002 i took the train, the guy who was cheking the tickets told me i was in 1st class and to move to the 2nd class. I was on a ****ing wooden chair! 53£ from Gatwick to B'mouth, the train was 1 hour late, stopped another hour in the middle of nowhere near Portsmouth, then it was cancelled and we had to wait another hour in S'ton for the next train. Benefits for consumer my arse!
Try again mate, Im far from being convinced.

PS: What's the "general interest"?

[univofchicago]

Sounds very tempting but don't think I'll bother mate as I fear I may drift into a permanent boredom induced coma.

Economics can get very boring. ESPECIALLY when it becomes math-intensive.

But I still do think it is worthwhile to check on Friedman's works. Or Levitt's "Freakonomics".

[paulcooper4]

Economics can get very boring. ESPECIALLY when it becomes math-intensive.

But I still do think it is worthwhile to check on Friedman's works. Or Levitt's "Freakonomics".

theres only one freakonomic around here mate, and thats you if youre attempting to say anything positive about evil maggie on a liverpool site my friend. Trust me, come and have a little weekend break in liverpool and go around a few working mans clubs. Enlighten them on why maggie is good and I think your eyes will be opened to what a twisted horrible **** she is/was.

[univofchicago]

theres only one freakonomic around here mate, and thats you if youre attempting to say anything positive about evil maggie on a liverpool site my friend. Trust me, come and have a little weekend break in liverpool and go around a few working mans clubs. Enlighten them on why maggie is good and I think your eyes will be opened to what a twisted horrible **** she is/was.

Paul, I will get back to you a bit later. Let me finish my response to Mr Le Chacal.

Oh btw, I'm defending Milton Friedman. Someone here asked for a reaction to the attacks made against Friedman, and that is why I'm giving him one. Mr Le Chacal has come forward with a question of his own, that is why I am responding back. Nothing 'freakonomics' about that.

[univofchicago]

PS: What's the "general interest"?

The “general interest” that Milton Friedman is talking about here is the general well being of the economy AS A WHOLE. With de-regulation and removal of protectionism, Friedman is saying that the consumer is better off than before. How?

1) Removal of protectionist measures increases competition. It also allows free trade that helps workers to specialize in goods and services that they produce more efficiently than the rest of the world and then to exchange them for goods and services that other countries produce at higher quality and lower cost. All these mechanisms combine to provide consumers, like you and me, with cheaper and higher quality goods.

2) Less Taxes. Protectionist measures put a burden on the people who aren’t part of the ‘special interest groups’. How do the trade unions protect their industries? Through quotas and tariffs. Who pays for the extra cost of quotas and tariffs? WE the consumers pay for the extra cost of quotas/tariffs. But like I said before, it is invisible to us. The trade union and protectionists also demand that they receive subsidies from the government . And who ultimately pays for the subsidies? The people. And how do the people pay for the subsidies? Through more tax.

3) Protectionist measures means less jobs. “Protectionism” gives the impression that the country’s overall economy is being “protected” from harmful foreign competition. This is simply not the case. Take a hypothetical example of a state-owned steel company in Liverpool. De-regulation and removal of protectionist measures forced the company and its mills to shut down. It is quite VISIBLE to us that the new measures cost people jobs. But it is still important to ask, what about the average joe? What about the autoworker? If the steel company and its workers were protected, then the price of steel would be much higher. With the new measures, it will help improve the competitiveness of the steel industry bringing the prices down and improving the quality of steel. Many other industries would then BENEFIT from these changes such as the automobile industry by enabling them to reduce costs of production and, therefore, increase profitability. This means more jobs for the autoworkers and people in other industries are also certain to benefit. But as Milton Friedman says, the fact that these people got these jobs because of these measures is invisible to them. Conclusion is that the benefits FAR outweigh the costs.

Watch Ken Loach movies and see what Thatcher's policies have done to thousands of genuine and hard workers. A disaster that ruined thousands of families.

It should be clear, as explained above, that Thatcher’s policies had a positive effect on the long-run overall state of the economy. The economic stability that UK has witnessed for the last 10 years is clear evidence of that. But the detractors will point out that it was also responsible for the loss of jobs of “genuine and hard-workers” and how “it ruined thousands of families”. Your point is a classic argument against the removal of protectionism and deregulation.

The flaw in your argument is that social and moral arguments are being invoked to discredit the whole anti-protectionism argument. The tendency is for people to invoke morality ONLY on their side, and not to recognize that there are problems of human beings in this world that are going to occur in either case. Since you object to Thatcher’s polices, then you are essentially an advocate of protectionism. If you want to talk about moral issues, I would argue that the social and moral issues are on the side of free trade – that it is people who INTRODUCE protection that are the ones who are violating fundamental social and moral issues. Give me one example of a trade union that existed to represent the workers who are displaced because high tariffs that reduces exports from this country. What about the poverty in Brazil that goes largely unnoticed in the US and the UK, a place that carries the burden of such protectionism acts. What about the thousands of working class workers in other industries that had lost their jobs because of the protectionist acts? The real question ought to be what will provide a circumstance that will be more dynamic and productive in the world market. That is what Thatcher (as a prime minister) and Friedman (as an Economist) should be asking.

But, then you may argue that Friedman completely disregarded the thousands of workers in Liverpool that were sacrificed for the good of the economy. WRONG. If Friedman had it his way, he would have done something very different from Thatcher with regards to the displaced workers. Friedman does not believe that there should be special programs such as tariffs, quotas and trade unions for displaced workers. What he DOES believe is to you ought to have some mechanism, voluntary or governmental, which will assist people in distress. That is where the NEGATIVE INCOME TAX comes in. It is an idea introduced by Milton Friedman and, now, well supported by most Economists around the world. I will try to explain how it works: There would be a flat tax of about 20% and the person (regardless of his income) would be paid say 5,000 pounds by the UK government. If the person only makes 1,000 pounds a year, he would have to pay out 200 pounds in taxes. But the net gain is 5,800 pounds when you add in the allowance paid by the government. It works the say way for someone earning 100,000 pounds a year. So as you can see, Friedman does not disregard the displaced workers. Why hasn’t it been implemented despite the support? Because of politics and tax codes are firmly established in most countries. Politically, it would be extremely difficult to pass on a legislation that would mean a complete overhaul of the taxing system.

For example, The train system in England is the worst in Europe. And its the most expensive I've ever seen. At least 30 years behind France and Switzerland. In 2002 i took the train, the guy who was cheking the tickets told me i was in 1st class and to move to the 2nd class. I was on a ****ing wooden chair! 53£ from Gatwick to B'mouth, the train was 1 hour late, stopped another hour in the middle of nowhere near Portsmouth, then it was cancelled and we had to wait another hour in S'ton for the next train. Benefits for consumer my arse!
Try again mate, Im far from being convinced.

I’ll glad that you brought that up because it was the focus of my discussion in one of the workshop sessions I attended at the University of Chicago. I don’t agree with some of Milton Friedman’s views. I have even said this a couple of times here on Est1892. As you mentioned, limited government intervention in Urban Transit is one example of where I disagree. I agree with Milton Friedman on the basic idea that de-regulation and privatization is good for most industries - that government’s role in the market should be limited. How limited is where we differ. The two areas that I believe the government should intervene are Transportation and Urban Development. However, Milton Friedman sees there is no reason for the government to interfere in those areas.

Having said this, the plight that you had described above should not take anything away from the enormous success of the privatization program initiated by the Thatcher administration. I can’t be bothered to dig up all the organizations that benefited enormously from de-regulation but I’m sure the successes far outweigh the failures.

Very good lesson my friend. I understand now your "Chicago" name...School of Chicago, London scool of economics....Fukuyama, Hayek, Friedman and their "End of History", "Third way" etc..

Easy there! The “School of Chicago” or the “Chicago School” is a loose term used to describe an approach to Economics by the faculty members of the University of Chicago. However, Economics has evolved in so many ways over the last 40 years that the “Chicago School” today is quite different from the “Chicago School” represented by Milton Friedman. The “Chicago School” led by Milton Friedman, George Stigler and Theodore Schultz (all Nobel Laureates) is the one that concerns us most at the moment. Without going into real detail, today’s “Chicago School” representated by five nobel laureates (Becker, Lucas, Heckman, Fogel, Coase) and two John Bates Clark Medal winners (Levitt, Murphy) is considerably different and somewhat irrelevant to our discussion.

[rodo]

paul cooper a man of many wise words

[rodo]

can we all get the ball back out anyway

[le2red]

Friedman may well have some sensible and logical economic theories. However, what they tend to do is ignore is the social consquences of implementing said theories.

A government is elected to do what is best for the social welfare of a country and not just it's economic welfare. When That bitch Thatcher was in power, she completely ignored the social impact her policies would have on the North of the UK.

Oh and I was on the kop on saturday and never heard any chanting of Who are ya, who are ya. ??